You must be careful how you word that. Evolution means a multitude of things. If by evolution you mean that there is a change in allele frequencies, then it is indeed a fact - proven beyond doubt through scientific methods.
If however by evolution you mean that all living things share a common ancestor - then that has very little evidence and is far from being a fact. This has caused some to coin the terms micro and macro evolution. However, even these terms are deceptive and best avoided. It is beneficial for you to specify what use of the word evolution you refer to. Specifically, that all living things share a common ancestor is a claim that, as you say, is "riddled with mistakes, conjecture, and circular reasoning". That species are formed and adapt to their environment through natural selection, this use of the word evolution is beyond doubt and is a fact.
I could be wrong, but 250,000 attempts != 250,000 separate people with separate requests. It could, and most probably does, represent multiple attempts from one location.
Certainly not. There are countless reasons why your normal person would fall for this scam and not be getting what they deserve. Genuine desire to help, intense financial problems that cloud judgement (and most people have these at some time), etc.
I think that you are being a heartless bastard with no understanding of the decision making processes behind everything we do in life. I think that educating people is a far better approach than telling them "they get what they deserve". These people are lying to them. Not everyone is adept at detecting lies.
Do you disapprove of them scamming scammers by wasting their time, but not actually taking any money off them?
If you do agree to that, then what about when the recipients of these scams cause the scammer to hire out a hotel for a night for a visit they never intend to make? They didn't obtain any money from the scammer, but they did cause the scammer to waste both time and money.
I tend to think that if the law cannot stop these people then it is our moral obligation to stop them. If I lived in a country where the government forces were insufficient to stop a murder, I would have absolutely no moral objections to lying and deceiving someone attempting murder in order to save the victim. I see these situations as comparable - with the murder being some other crime.
What's the deal with Google shares. Is it possible for the average Joe with some money to buy some of this float? How much is it? I couldn't work it out when I was looking a few months ago.
Could it be that despite the flame wars, KDE is indeed the best/preferred desktop for Linux?
Yes, with the most annoying naming conventions yet...
I haven't seen any posts (modded up, anyway) that support the horrid culture of starting an app with a 'k'. Any kde app that doesn't start with a 'k' automatically has its reputation raised a little for free.
Noticeably absent are posts deriding KDE for technical problems, design issues and or performance issues.
Yes, kde is very advanced and featureful. I don't really see how people could complain about these things, except for the ever present licensing issue with Qt being under GPL only - but lets not get into that.
I downloaded this a few weeks ago in PDF format, and never even saw a word format version. So, somewhere, is an official PDF version of this book (besides on my hard disk).
Re:The truth is hard to believe
on
Who Wrote Linux?
·
· Score: 1
What this story says to me: "Wow, these guys must really hate Microsoft".
Concerted development support from companies (IBM, Sun, Novell, HP, Fujitsu, et al) that are fierce competitors every other day of the week?
What else has the power to unite people together but the threat of a common foe?
Reading your post made me think about the whole situation from a different point of view. It made me wonder, 30 years down the track, what will people think when they hear about Linux and how it was created? I'm not saying this is the truth of the matter - but reading your summary inspires one to wonder what would motivate them to do such altruistic tasks. A common foe is the answer that springs to mind. After all, the creation of Linux is a direct threat to the dominant OS of our time. If people were satisfied with Microsoft and Windows, then they wouldn't feel motivated to do something for free.
Anyway, my intent was not to bash Microsoft, but just show how your summary could make a student of history come to these conclusions.
Not really so safe as you make it sound. If someone is genuinely trying to exploit your system they may get their hands on/etc/shadow through a variety of tricky methods.
This is one of the reasons why patching software is so important - if you don't, a hacker may be able to obtain your/etc/shadow file, and (with this site) easily obtain your password.
Not to mention that a hacker might gain root access on your system through another flaw, obtain your password(s), and use them for other servers/systems that you use the same password on.
I think the results have changed - so that when the poster wrote this, he was getting the results he claimed. I'm not seeing any of these strange no results found messages that others have. Not sure why, but it seems like they've fixed up a lot of the missing entries.
p.
Nevertheless, I still find the returned results to be far less useful than google.
Oh yes - and precisely what does evolution predict? Any conceivable future can be explained by Darwinism, even those situations that today are claimed contrary to Darwinist predictions.
Darwinism is a theory that predicts everything and explains nothing.
On a sidenote, according to the statistics, individuals who believe in the 'sacredness of the marriage bed', let alone marriage, are a dying breed. Apparently the views held by those individuals are not that convincing to younger generations. One might consider this to be the continuing 'sexual revolution'.
That in itself means nothing. There have been entire generations convinced of falsehoods all throughout history. This is an undisputable fact for this reason: there have been many generations that disagreed with what another generation taught. They can't both be right.
What I'd say is that these young people are being taught by TV, commercial and social interests. Whether or not the ideas behind these are correct, they are being marketted better than traditional monogamous ideas. For me, the fact that younger generations are being convinced means absolutely nothing. People typically get wiser with age, so I've little interest in adopting a position for this reason alone. It may be right, it may not (I believe the latter), but this is an insufficient argument.
Forgive me for quoting another one of your posts and putting it here to save space:
Because monogamy restricts the sexual relations of a man to a single woman, in a healthy population, this means that more of those with genetic defects (active or latent) can procreate, whereas otherwise only a small subset of such individuals would be able to produce offspring.
A few problems:
1. Your argument suggests that the ultimate goal of reproduction is evolution, which presupposes Darwinism, which presupposes God's absence from working in His Creation. I do not ascribe to that, so I have no problem in forcing monogamy even though it might possibly introduce more defects.
2. Monogamy is, strictly speaking, not a Christian norm. In the old testament there are numerous examples of pious men in polygynous relationships (never polyandrous). In the new testament little->nothing is said on monogamy vs polygyny. It is only certain all throughout Scripture that women may never have more than one husband. Therefore it is not a hard step for me to permit polygyny in a society that can handle it.
3. Your argument sounds like you are saying "those with obvious genetic defects should not be allowed to breed". What are you saying? If I have a genetic defect that causes me to have a weaker back than others (so I can't do any heavy labour) then how in any reality would this sexual revolution reduce my chances of procreating any more than a monogamous culture? In fact, my chances of procreation in a sexually liberal society would be increased (IF such a society desired offspring, which this one doesn't).
You must constantly encourage others to live by those commandments on the slab, while disobeying them yourself, since no sane human can keep to all ten at once, all the time.
Pathetically incorrect. Do you even know what the 10 commandments are when you wrote this post? Give me an explanation why a sane human cannot keep all ten at once, all the time.
As for Iraq, there are plenty of Christians who oppose it. I personally oppose the Iraq war, but do not oppose war in general - it just must be for the right reasons.
All you other wannabes, stfu and leave those of us capable of rational thought alone.
By what standard or measuring stick do you determine that you are capable of rational thought? What if you are deluded such that you cannot see and understand? If you were, then you would sincerely believe that you were not deluded. Your contention that Christians are incapable of rational thought belies ignorance and self delusion. Personally, I try not to assume that everyone else is as stupid as one representative I meet of another faith or belief system.
The AC made a very appropriate response on why these parts are not realistic, but I wanted to add a couple of things:
I think the beauty of all the Civ games is the realism that the pollution, rioting, anarchy, etc. presents. Not only do those elements make the game more challenging but they do make them a little more realistic.
They are arbitrary penalties with realistic names. We could leave the game mechanics the same and give them names like "attrition", or "crime", or "loyalty" and they'd still make sense. Once the game actually tries to simulate a global economy, or genuine social currents and changes, then perhaps we could call these realistic.
Civ is a game that you can play over and over again and never really play the same way twice. But, will you really want to play it again if you can beat it in an hour because the things that make it challenging are stripped away?
That has absolutely nothing to do with the challenges in the game. If you eliminate these unfun elements then your opponents won't have them either. You will still be trying to outgrow neighbouring empires. Let the unfun inhibitors be ones that are imposed on you by other nations, not by an arbitrary game mechanic - wars, spies, trade, diplomacy, colonization, etc. There's plenty to compete for, and plenty of obstacles prohibitting you from world domination. It won't make the game any quicker, because your opponents will have the same liberties. It will just cut out those unfun elements of the game.
Have the security system know everything is ok by sending regular update messages. This way you can send out an error when it detects an intrudor. However, if the intruder cuts off your internet somehow before they enter then you will still know something is wrong because you no longer receive regular update messages.
However... My IE takes around 6 seconds (proxy resolution) to render the home page. If I open the browser and want to type an URL to go somewhere else than the home page, I'd better do it before the 6 seconds elapse, or... Pfft!!! It erases all I've written and displays the home page URL!
That's why I always hit stop as the first thing when I open the browser and want to type a url. Saves you all the headaches. Konquerer has this same quirk.
Wow, that's a really low bar to set for employment. I'm not sure I want to work for someone who attracts people that totally clueless for interviews that they need to test whether or not a person can run Winmsd.
As surprising as you may find it, I knew one person studying for CCNA who didn't have a home network and didn't know anything about computer specifications. I'll bet this person would have failed the open case test, yet is still capable (with effort) of passing CCNA.
This sounds like a good test, so long as it's not limited to this.
MOO3 is hopeless. It's not even fun. It is unecessarily complex, and then tries to hide that complexity through AI - what's the point? I wish I'd returned it within the week that I could, rather than keeping it in the hopes that it would be fixed.
Precisely - the only reason we need them is because they make it so they're needed. It's like building a dam to stop the flow of water to a town, then sell them the water they had. They add an extra level of effort that never needs to exist.
Do you have some examples of what this will let us do? I know nothing about Avalon, so I've little idea of the potential of Avalon or Cairo, or any examples of useful implementations. On the screenshots for Waimea all I see is a nice OSX kind of look.
Here you're trying to persuade him to agree that something doesn't end. Everything is changing. What can you say is never changing? Virginity? How about in your next life, you start enjoying sex after a nice life of virginity? Everything is always changing, you don't really have to believe in reincarnation to understand it, but spirituality helps..
Reincarnation? As far as I can see, your response requires an assumption of something I simply don't believe. I am trying to show him that not all endings are good, and not all things need to end. I never said things don't change.
You state e.g rape as some absolute evil or bad. I agree it is propbably not a pleasurable experience. However, the more "bad" you label it, the more problems you will have with it. While if you just look at the good and bad in life as just events, clouds passing by, they won't touch you in the same way. You won't get dragged down in the mud. This is not to say you don't follow through with persecution, but the faster you can accept that the event _happened_, the better off _you_'ll be.
I do not understand what you are saying. Your answer says that there is nothing inherently wrong with rape. It just is. What then of murder? Is there anything wrong with that? Why?
You seem to think a relationship should last forever, or that if it only lasts for some time, it wasn't perfect. Nothing is perfect in this world (except in its own inner perfection), everything will end or change, and everybody will have different experiences (that's the whole point!).
No, I'm saying that his attitude lends itself to less than perfect relationships. He has not let himself compromise, so has accepted substandard relationships as a substitute to better ones. There is nothing perfect in this world, but his relationships will end far quicker than normal ones. While he may be unharmed through his non-compromising attitude, he will form far fewer deep and rewarding relationships, and may hurt more others through it.
Now why do you say the whole point of the world is to have different experiences? What philosophy is this that says the greatest good is to have a different experience?
In fact, your whole philosophy is foreign to me - and you aren't doing a good job of explaining it. I'm suspecting you have a strong Buddhist influence, but you are assuming way too much in your response about my underlying philosophy and assumptions. The original poster should be able to understand, I think, that compromise is necessary for forming deeper, better, relationships. Your post, however, I find confusing and foreign.
So then you agree with me that not all things end, and not all endings are good.
Do you base your beliefs upon the approval of others? I do not. If every other human being on the planet were of the opinion that dirt or feces were tasty snacks, would you start eating them because of their opinions? I would not.
That is not at all what I was saying. Every idea you've had, every time you think you had a clever insight - someone's thought of it before you. And that person may have rejected it for reasons which you aren't clever enough to see. To keep your ideas to yourself you only give yourself the chance to increase your ignorance. Just because someone criticises your philosophy does not mean they are right (answering your question). It just means that if they are right, at least you've had the opportunity to hear it. Otherwise, you will think yourself to be wise when you are actually a fool. A man may think his castle impervious to attack, until the enemy comes and lays waste to it.
Why not? Every thing else has a beginning and an end. Childhood, puberty, fertility, adulthood. Why should a relationship be any different.
Not everything needs to have an end:
* loving relationship with parents
* a child's life
* virginity
Simply because many things have an end does not follow that all endings are good. If someone's virginity is ended through rape, that is not good. It is bad - and I would say evil.
facts:
1. Good relationships are better than no relationships
2. No relationships are better than broken relatinoships .
If you plan for a relationship to be broken/destroyed, then you should never enter it in the first place.
Since you raise the issue, these things are neither "good" nor "bad" in and of themselves. Like most other parts of life, they just are.
I assume this is a glimpse of your own, personal philosophy. Have you opened it up to scrutiny for others to test - or do you just suppose that the conclusions made in your own mind are correct?
I live and will die on my own terms. No one else lives in my skin, I don't much care what someone else thinks of what I do in it.
To be blunt - it is near the height of ignorance and pride to claim this. Many do not have the pleasure or privilege to decide the terms by which they live and die. The fact that you can do so is a gift - a gift that may be taken away if you abuse it. Can God make a rock he can't move? In the same way the word 'freedom' comes with necessary restrictions.
You may call it stubborn, I call it freedom.
Actually, I call it ignorance and pride. The fact is, if you have life your way then someone else is not having life their own way. We ALL have to compromise.
Slashdot Mirror
If however by evolution you mean that all living things share a common ancestor - then that has very little evidence and is far from being a fact. This has caused some to coin the terms micro and macro evolution. However, even these terms are deceptive and best avoided. It is beneficial for you to specify what use of the word evolution you refer to. Specifically, that all living things share a common ancestor is a claim that, as you say, is "riddled with mistakes, conjecture, and circular reasoning". That species are formed and adapt to their environment through natural selection, this use of the word evolution is beyond doubt and is a fact.
http://www.linuxgames.com/news/feedback.php?identi ferID=6737&action=flatview/
I could be wrong, but 250,000 attempts != 250,000 separate people with separate requests. It could, and most probably does, represent multiple attempts from one location.
I think that you are being a heartless bastard with no understanding of the decision making processes behind everything we do in life. I think that educating people is a far better approach than telling them "they get what they deserve". These people are lying to them. Not everyone is adept at detecting lies.
If you do agree to that, then what about when the recipients of these scams cause the scammer to hire out a hotel for a night for a visit they never intend to make? They didn't obtain any money from the scammer, but they did cause the scammer to waste both time and money.
I tend to think that if the law cannot stop these people then it is our moral obligation to stop them. If I lived in a country where the government forces were insufficient to stop a murder, I would have absolutely no moral objections to lying and deceiving someone attempting murder in order to save the victim. I see these situations as comparable - with the murder being some other crime.
What's the deal with Google shares. Is it possible for the average Joe with some money to buy some of this float? How much is it? I couldn't work it out when I was looking a few months ago.
Yes, with the most annoying naming conventions yet...
I haven't seen any posts (modded up, anyway) that support the horrid culture of starting an app with a 'k'. Any kde app that doesn't start with a 'k' automatically has its reputation raised a little for free.
Noticeably absent are posts deriding KDE for technical problems, design issues and or performance issues.
Yes, kde is very advanced and featureful. I don't really see how people could complain about these things, except for the ever present licensing issue with Qt being under GPL only - but lets not get into that.
I downloaded this a few weeks ago in PDF format, and never even saw a word format version. So, somewhere, is an official PDF version of this book (besides on my hard disk).
What else has the power to unite people together but the threat of a common foe?
Reading your post made me think about the whole situation from a different point of view. It made me wonder, 30 years down the track, what will people think when they hear about Linux and how it was created? I'm not saying this is the truth of the matter - but reading your summary inspires one to wonder what would motivate them to do such altruistic tasks. A common foe is the answer that springs to mind. After all, the creation of Linux is a direct threat to the dominant OS of our time. If people were satisfied with Microsoft and Windows, then they wouldn't feel motivated to do something for free.
Anyway, my intent was not to bash Microsoft, but just show how your summary could make a student of history come to these conclusions.
Not really so safe as you make it sound. If someone is genuinely trying to exploit your system they may get their hands on /etc/shadow through a variety of tricky methods.
/etc/shadow file, and (with this site) easily obtain your password.
This is one of the reasons why patching software is so important - if you don't, a hacker may be able to obtain your
Not to mention that a hacker might gain root access on your system through another flaw, obtain your password(s), and use them for other servers/systems that you use the same password on.
I think the results have changed - so that when the poster wrote this, he was getting the results he claimed. I'm not seeing any of these strange no results found messages that others have. Not sure why, but it seems like they've fixed up a lot of the missing entries. p. Nevertheless, I still find the returned results to be far less useful than google.
Darwinism is a theory that predicts everything and explains nothing.
That in itself means nothing. There have been entire generations convinced of falsehoods all throughout history. This is an undisputable fact for this reason: there have been many generations that disagreed with what another generation taught. They can't both be right.
What I'd say is that these young people are being taught by TV, commercial and social interests. Whether or not the ideas behind these are correct, they are being marketted better than traditional monogamous ideas. For me, the fact that younger generations are being convinced means absolutely nothing. People typically get wiser with age, so I've little interest in adopting a position for this reason alone. It may be right, it may not (I believe the latter), but this is an insufficient argument.
Forgive me for quoting another one of your posts and putting it here to save space:
A few problems:1. Your argument suggests that the ultimate goal of reproduction is evolution, which presupposes Darwinism, which presupposes God's absence from working in His Creation. I do not ascribe to that, so I have no problem in forcing monogamy even though it might possibly introduce more defects.
2. Monogamy is, strictly speaking, not a Christian norm. In the old testament there are numerous examples of pious men in polygynous relationships (never polyandrous). In the new testament little->nothing is said on monogamy vs polygyny. It is only certain all throughout Scripture that women may never have more than one husband. Therefore it is not a hard step for me to permit polygyny in a society that can handle it.
3. Your argument sounds like you are saying "those with obvious genetic defects should not be allowed to breed". What are you saying? If I have a genetic defect that causes me to have a weaker back than others (so I can't do any heavy labour) then how in any reality would this sexual revolution reduce my chances of procreating any more than a monogamous culture? In fact, my chances of procreation in a sexually liberal society would be increased (IF such a society desired offspring, which this one doesn't).
Pathetically incorrect. Do you even know what the 10 commandments are when you wrote this post? Give me an explanation why a sane human cannot keep all ten at once, all the time.
As for Iraq, there are plenty of Christians who oppose it. I personally oppose the Iraq war, but do not oppose war in general - it just must be for the right reasons.
By what standard or measuring stick do you determine that you are capable of rational thought? What if you are deluded such that you cannot see and understand? If you were, then you would sincerely believe that you were not deluded. Your contention that Christians are incapable of rational thought belies ignorance and self delusion. Personally, I try not to assume that everyone else is as stupid as one representative I meet of another faith or belief system.They are arbitrary penalties with realistic names. We could leave the game mechanics the same and give them names like "attrition", or "crime", or "loyalty" and they'd still make sense. Once the game actually tries to simulate a global economy, or genuine social currents and changes, then perhaps we could call these realistic.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the challenges in the game. If you eliminate these unfun elements then your opponents won't have them either. You will still be trying to outgrow neighbouring empires. Let the unfun inhibitors be ones that are imposed on you by other nations, not by an arbitrary game mechanic - wars, spies, trade, diplomacy, colonization, etc. There's plenty to compete for, and plenty of obstacles prohibitting you from world domination. It won't make the game any quicker, because your opponents will have the same liberties. It will just cut out those unfun elements of the game.
Have the security system know everything is ok by sending regular update messages. This way you can send out an error when it detects an intrudor. However, if the intruder cuts off your internet somehow before they enter then you will still know something is wrong because you no longer receive regular update messages.
;)
Provides a small problem in blackouts though
As surprising as you may find it, I knew one person studying for CCNA who didn't have a home network and didn't know anything about computer specifications. I'll bet this person would have failed the open case test, yet is still capable (with effort) of passing CCNA.
This sounds like a good test, so long as it's not limited to this.
MOO3 is hopeless. It's not even fun. It is unecessarily complex, and then tries to hide that complexity through AI - what's the point? I wish I'd returned it within the week that I could, rather than keeping it in the hopes that it would be fixed.
Precisely - the only reason we need them is because they make it so they're needed. It's like building a dam to stop the flow of water to a town, then sell them the water they had. They add an extra level of effort that never needs to exist.
Do you have some examples of what this will let us do? I know nothing about Avalon, so I've little idea of the potential of Avalon or Cairo, or any examples of useful implementations. On the screenshots for Waimea all I see is a nice OSX kind of look.
It didn't offend me. I just found it interesting.
Reincarnation? As far as I can see, your response requires an assumption of something I simply don't believe. I am trying to show him that not all endings are good, and not all things need to end. I never said things don't change.
I do not understand what you are saying. Your answer says that there is nothing inherently wrong with rape. It just is. What then of murder? Is there anything wrong with that? Why?
No, I'm saying that his attitude lends itself to less than perfect relationships. He has not let himself compromise, so has accepted substandard relationships as a substitute to better ones. There is nothing perfect in this world, but his relationships will end far quicker than normal ones. While he may be unharmed through his non-compromising attitude, he will form far fewer deep and rewarding relationships, and may hurt more others through it.
Now why do you say the whole point of the world is to have different experiences? What philosophy is this that says the greatest good is to have a different experience?
In fact, your whole philosophy is foreign to me - and you aren't doing a good job of explaining it. I'm suspecting you have a strong Buddhist influence, but you are assuming way too much in your response about my underlying philosophy and assumptions. The original poster should be able to understand, I think, that compromise is necessary for forming deeper, better, relationships. Your post, however, I find confusing and foreign.
That is not at all what I was saying. Every idea you've had, every time you think you had a clever insight - someone's thought of it before you. And that person may have rejected it for reasons which you aren't clever enough to see. To keep your ideas to yourself you only give yourself the chance to increase your ignorance. Just because someone criticises your philosophy does not mean they are right (answering your question). It just means that if they are right, at least you've had the opportunity to hear it. Otherwise, you will think yourself to be wise when you are actually a fool. A man may think his castle impervious to attack, until the enemy comes and lays waste to it.
Not everything needs to have an end:
* loving relationship with parents
* a child's life
* virginity
Simply because many things have an end does not follow that all endings are good. If someone's virginity is ended through rape, that is not good. It is bad - and I would say evil.
facts:
1. Good relationships are better than no relationships
2. No relationships are better than broken relatinoships
. If you plan for a relationship to be broken/destroyed, then you should never enter it in the first place.
I assume this is a glimpse of your own, personal philosophy. Have you opened it up to scrutiny for others to test - or do you just suppose that the conclusions made in your own mind are correct?
To be blunt - it is near the height of ignorance and pride to claim this. Many do not have the pleasure or privilege to decide the terms by which they live and die. The fact that you can do so is a gift - a gift that may be taken away if you abuse it. Can God make a rock he can't move? In the same way the word 'freedom' comes with necessary restrictions.
Actually, I call it ignorance and pride. The fact is, if you have life your way then someone else is not having life their own way. We ALL have to compromise.